Movement of Ball by Outside Influence

[Steven Rules]

It is "just too easy" because that is what 9.5 clearly leads one to understand. But never mind. Those who write the rules can instruct us how to apply them even if they are wrong by their own words. ?

Judging by its Facebook page, the ease with which its members seem to able to get quick answers to questions and the openness with which members post such answers on internet forums, the USGA seems to have a different approach to that of the R&A. I get the matter of not wanting individuals to pass on rulings like this given, for example, the risk of them being distorted in a form of Chinese whispers but it's not asking much for it to post them on its own website. That way it controls the wording of the explanations; that way golfers in general are kept informed; and that way for those of us who put back into the game by refereeing it's not just left to chance to find out.

The only reason I now know there is no penalty for moving an opponent's ball in this situation despite 9.5 is through a series of chances. I happen to follow the GM forum. A member of that forum happened to come across an unusual situation and happened to post about it. Another member happened to to be in the position of having an unpublished answer from a "higher authority" and was able within the constraints he was under to resolve the issue. It's not really satisfactory.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....and didn't.

 

[nickjdavis]

I think the upside is, that in a matchplay situation, where this unfairness ( i think that morally most of us agree that applying a penalty for something that in most cases is totally outside of a players control is unfair) applies, that players have the choice to overlook rules breaches. I'd also guess that 99% (I wont bother with the multiple 9's ) of golfers would not even conceive for one instant that a penalty might be applicable.*

* yes I realise that ignorance of the rules is no defence!!

 

[rulefan]

Can rulie tell us where he is located?

 

[salfordlad]

Yes. It was more than a bit sarcastic. It was very sarcastic. But, you are right, it was unhelpful.

Back to topic. Could you please confirm for me, though, in match play if an opponent makes a pactice swing and sends sand and loose impediments flying that moves the player’s ball, does the opponent incur a one stroke penalty under 9.5b? Is there anything in this 9.5/9.6 ruling that changes my understaning of 9 5b in this scenario?

My answer is a categorical yes to 9.5 penalty in this practice swing scenario. A player gets a penalty for accidentally moving an opponent's ball through an action that is not directly covered by the exceptions in 9.4b(*) or in the playing a stroke circumstance we have been focussing on in this thread. It is only the playing the stroke element that, in my understanding, creates this 9.6 special case. It wouldn't matter if the player simply accidentally trod on the opponent's ball or was taking a practice swing and the unfortunate, unintended movement occurred. This 9.5 penalty mirrors (*) the 9.4 penalty a player would get from accidentally moving their own ball through the same actions.
(*) There is a minor nuanced difference between 9.4b and 9.5 Exceptions, the latter excludes 9.4b's Exception 1 - but this is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[salfordlad]

I, too, hate the Secret Squirrel crap. Regulators should be transparent and answerable for their decisions. And while I am enormously supportive, respectful and empathetic to the challenges that our Ruling Bodies face, I part company with their approach on this issue.

 

[Colin L]

I've no difficulty in agreeing that the playing of a stroke should make a difference but no matter how compelling and elegant your argument, it points only to the need for that to be clear in the rules. But that's ok in that there are bound to be situations which were not contemplated at the time of writing. Perhaps it will be clarified in the 2023 Rules and that would be good, but it's the in-between times that create a problem. Perhaps all I was suggesting in my wee rant above was what we have seen in a few "clarifications' but transmuted into many, regular website updates on applying the rules to particular situations. How about Decisions on the Rules of Golf as a working title.

 

[salfordlad]

It is "just too easy" because that is what 9.5 clearly leads one to understand. But never mind. Those who write the rules can instruct us how to apply them even if they are wrong by their own words. ?

Judging by its Facebook page, the ease with which its members seem to able to get quick answers to questions and the openness with which members post such answers on internet forums, the USGA seems to have a different approach to that of the R&A. I get the matter of not wanting individuals to pass on rulings like this given, for example, the risk of them being distorted in a form of Chinese whispers but it's not asking much for it to post them on its own website. That way it controls the wording of the explanations; that way golfers in general are kept informed; and that way for those of us who put back into the game by refereeing it's not just left to chance to find out.

The only reason I now know there is no penalty for moving an opponent's ball in this situation despite 9.5 is through a series of chances. I happen to follow the GM forum. A member of that forum happened to come across an unusual situation and happened to post about it. Another member happened to to be in the position of having an unpublished answer from a "higher authority" and was able within the constraints he was under to resolve the issue. It's not really satisfactory.

Significant agreement from me here. But it is the USGA and not the R&A that routinely includes a 'not to be shared' limitation on direct answers they supply to questions sent in from the public to their general rules questions web address. Happily, though, the USGA has notably beefed up its support for the FB rules page from early 2021 and they are supplying many useful answers to questions in that forum. However, there is a non-trivial proportion of the more tricky questions that are submitted there which never get answered. That is, the queue of challenging questions for which there are no current rules answers is not a trivial one.

 

[salfordlad]

I've no difficulty in agreeing that the playing of a stroke should make a difference but no matter how compelling and elegant your argument, it points only to the need for that to be clear in the rules. But that's ok in that there are bound to be situations which were not contemplated at the time of writing. Perhaps it will be clarified in the 2023 Rules and that would be good, but it's the in-between times that create a problem. Perhaps all I was suggesting in my wee rant above was what we have seen in a few "clarifications' but transmuted into many, regular website updates on applying the rules to particular situations. How about Decisions on the Rules of Golf as a working title.

This is a view I have repeatedly argued for with all the RB members I have had direct contact with. I would simply call it Recent Rulings, it would be a periodic publication kept on the public record and it would come with a suitable health warning that any changes to the question may produce a different answer and the answer may change over time as the Rules and how they are interpreted continue to evolve.

 

[rulie]

Can rulie tell us where he is located?

North America.

 

[rulefan]

North America.

 

[rulefan]

This is a view I have repeatedly argued for with all the RB members I have had direct contact with. I would simply call it Recent Rulings, it would be a periodic publication kept on the public record and it would come with a suitable health warning that any changes to the question may produce a different answer and the answer may change over time as the Rules and how they are interpreted continue to evolve.

In all my recent communications from staff members at the R&A there has been no non-disclosure statement. But I do remember being told by a senior member of the Rules Committee that although there was (then) such a clause, I was free to publish to others providing the situation was exactly the same. I was not to extrapolate.